National Broadband Policy?

Posted by
Sam Churchill
on
September 27th, 2007

Today the Committee will explore the pivotally important topic of high speed internet access for small business. In particular, we will discuss the extent to which small businesses have access to broadband technology, whether the prices are affordable, whether the speeds are adequate and how we can make improvements.

They called for a national broadband summit to discuss the U.S. high-speed Internet penetration rate, blaming its slow rollout on a lack of cohesive data and a reliance on marketplace conditions rather than government-sponsored initiatives.

The quality evaluation plan for broadband comprises two categories–technology and user satisfaction. The evaluation index for technology will measure both upload and download speeds, delay time and loss factor, while the evaluation index for user satisfaction appraises the connecting rate of termination call, with plus points going to providers serving users with written contracts at each stage, from subscription to termination.

Obviously South Korea’s small size and population density helps in enabling broadband connectivity, but obviously some lessons can be taken from their broadband policies. Here in the States even getting the FCC to provide accurate broadband penetration data has been like pulling teeth, and the best we get are a scattered few lawmakers insisting that having some broadband plan might be a good idea.

Incumbent lobbyists, fearful (and rightly so) that progressive pro-consumer policies could hurt their bottom lines, have lobbied this nation’s government into apathy and inaction.

The proposed Community Fiber Network (pdf), would serve government offices first, then might be expanded to run fiber-optic cable into every home and business.

St. Paul’s decision to pursue a fiber-optic network puts it on a collision course with the Twin Cities’ two dominant providers of broadband services: Qwest Communications and cable provider Comcast, which both oppose the idea.

“In general, we don’t think it is appropriate for the government to use taxpayer dollars to offer or subsidize a service in competition with private-sector alternatives, and high-speed Internet service is a particularly competitive and robust market in most areas,” Comcast spokeswoman Mary Beth Schubert said.

“Government-run broadband networks are risky ventures that often rely on overly optimistic subscriber and revenue projections. When the networks fail to meet financial goals, the taxpayers get stuck with the bill,” said Andrew Schriner, Qwest’s director of public policy.

The fiber network could cost $200-$300 million, depending on the size of the network, but it’s not clear how it would be financed.

Through a combination of good luck and good management, Portland scored one of the few city-wide municipal WiFi networks that offers completely free service (with banner advertising).

At first, I could never seem to get a reliable connection with MetroFi. Now it works well from my apartment. DailyWireless has been using it as our sole connection to the internet for the last month. So far, so good. While I can’t speak for anyone but myself, I find that MetroFi is a valuable addition for the city. Who doesn’t love the idea of free WiFi everywhere?

Personal Telco activists have demonstrated that free grass roots wireless is not only possible but effective. They pioneered the concept and made it happen in hundreds of coffee shops, small businesses and residences in Portland.

Codenamed Shadow, the main purpose of MSN Sideguide is to fund the free wifi networks that Microsoft is currently testing in Oakland and Portland with its ISP partner, MetroFi – the wifi connection will be dropped if Sideguide is not running.